OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC

 View Only

[ebxml-msg] RE: Public usage scenario documents

  • 1.  [ebxml-msg] RE: Public usage scenario documents

    Posted 05-28-2002 13:28
     MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    ebxml-msg message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


    Subject: [ebxml-msg] RE: Public usage scenario documents


    
    David,
    
    In addition to baked beans, some people would like to do financial
    transactions where messaging reliability does matter.  Even with the baked
    beans, a system failure could mean that you receive two container-loads of
    beans instead of the one you thought you ordered because you  re-sent the
    order, thinking that the first one was not delivered when it was delivered.
    
    We do not have a note in the msg spec which says that reliability is not
    guaranteed in the face of system failures. In general, unless we lay out
    the rule for determining whether a use case is in the 95% that work or the
    5% that don't work, people will meet disasters.
    
    "The requirements were not clear" is one example of under-specification.
    No doubt, the Hubble Space Telescope initial disaster was also a case of
    under-specification of test cases if nothing else.
    
    Regards,
    Marty
    
    *************************************************************************************
    
    Martin W. Sachs
    IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
    P. O. B. 704
    Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
    914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
    Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
    Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
    *************************************************************************************
    
    
                                                                                                                                 
                          David RR Webber -                                                                                      
                          XMLGlobal                To:       Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS                                     
                          <Gnosis_@compuser        cc:       "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>,      
                          ve.com>                   Randy Clark <Randy.Clark@bakerhughes.com>, "'bhaugen'"                       
                                                    <linkage@interaccess.com>, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org, eBTWG List        
                          05/28/2002 09:01          <ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org>, "'Duane Nickull'" <duane@xmlglobal.com>,            
                          AM                        Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>                                    
                                                   Subject:  RE: Public usage scenario documents                                 
                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                 
    
    
    
    Message text written by "Martin W Sachs"
    >
    - Except that in this case, there is a small matter of interoperability
    between arms-length implementations, so merely relying on implementers to
    know what to do won't get us there unless the specification is precise and
    complete.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    
    Marty,
    
    I'm looking for a balance here - we have to understand that we are NOT
    trying to put orbiters around far flung planets, but instead trying to put
    a better cheaper tins of baked beans on the shelves at Walmart by truck
    and railroad.
    
    So while I understand the desires to get things right - we need to separate
    out goals - and say - hey for right now - for the implementations being
    fielded
    we have enough - we have technical notes in the spec's giving clear
    marks where the extended functionality is underconstruction.
    
    And we should certainly not be saying the spec' does not work or is broken,
    when for 95+% of use cases its more than good enough.
    
    Now when it comes to the W3C - they have a happy habit of getting the
    requirements totally mismashed, IMHO.  So if we can do anything for the
    W3C it is getting their requires straight before hand.
    
    Strangely enough - the rockets failed not because of the technical bit and
    bytes - but because the requirements were not clear...
    
    a) All measurements will be in metric.
    
    b) Re-use of old components from earlier sub-systems must be crosschecked
         and approved.
    
    If one half of the team is building a cruise-ship and the other half a
    ferry, you're
    in big trouble!
    
    So I'm not against extended work here - we just need to understand why
    and for what audience / use case needs.
    
    Cheers, DW.
    
    
    
    
    
    


    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


    Powered by eList eXpress LLC